Still use Mp3 for your DVD rip ? [Archive]

eXistenZ

2nd October 2002, 08:19

Originally posted by ookzDVD

are you still using mp3 for your DVD rip ? ;)
Vorbis take over the job ;)

I totally agree!

I'm working on 1-CD rips with two audio tracks (original language and dubbed) for movies 2 hrs long...

Vorbis offers better quality at lower bitrates.

Not to mention that muxing in ogm stream gets rid of AVI cr@p and at least 15 MB of overhead...

ookzDVD

2nd October 2002, 08:38

@N_F & DJ Bobo,
Sure, in many cases distributing AVI with MP3 audio is more
acceptable since they don't have to install additional audio codec,
and Ogg splitter.

@tanksimpson,
Vorbis has multi-channels support. ;)

@Dolemite,
Lucky you have the DVD-R ;)

@eXistenZ,
thank you for the support, I finally have a friend ;)

Didée

2nd October 2002, 10:42

Originally posted by eXistenZ
I'm working on 1-CD rips with two audio tracks (original language and dubbed) for movies 2 hrs long...
When I mux 2 audio tracks, as soon as I switch over to the 2nd audio stream, I have the "2x-speedup-problem". I tried various combination of creating audio, muxing, filters, etc. Not one single attempt succeeded.

How do you do it??? :confused:

]Originally posted by ookzDVD
@N_F & DJ Bobo,
Sure, in many cases distributing AVI with MP3 audio is more
acceptable since they don't have to install additional audio codec,
and Ogg splitter.
I would suggest distributing VCR tapes :D

BiaTch 5.0

2nd October 2002, 11:45

Originally posted by ookzDVD

@tanksimpson,
Vorbis has multi-channels support. ;)

So does Mp3 (5.1) just lack of software support.

DJ Bobo
Ogg isn't that revolutionary
bullsh*t OGG is as revolutionary as it gets unpanted technology that rivals burdened, highly panted AAC. Amazing voice, low bitrates (IMO perfect for 70-100kbps movie audio). As for hardware support I have come to the conclusion that hardware support is unpredictable OGG has all the elements for a future "mp3" support OGG is unpanted, free, open source, excellent @ low 5-128kbps & good & higher bitrates but can be greatly improved just be tuning optimizations, multi channel support ( 255 channels),up to 192kHz, alota room to grow & will because testing, optimizing is/can be done by demanding users/fans (just look at L.A.M.E), once again unpanted, free.

But I still use mp3 because of current hardware support.

eXistenZ

2nd October 2002, 13:46

Originally posted by Didée

When I mux 2 audio tracks, as soon as I switch over to the 2nd audio stream, I have the "2x-speedup-problem".

Never heard this problem, neither with 2 Ogg Vorbis in a Ogm (muxed with OggMux), neither with 2 VBR MP3 in a Avi (muxed with Nandub)
(don't mind ookzDVD, it was in the old dark ages ;)).

Dunno, it sounds like a problem of the player, maybe...

Originally posted by ookzDVD
thank you for the support, I finally have a friend ;)

:)

Didée

2nd October 2002, 14:38

eXistenZ,

if you never hear, browse a little through "New A/V formats" here, e.g. here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=187382). Enough reports out there.

DJ Bobo

2nd October 2002, 14:41

@ BiaTch 5.0
Sorry, but I don't agree. It can be the most free codec in the world, I don't care as long as it doesn't improve quality dramatically and doesn't fit into an AVI! the typical ogg bitrate would be 96kbps. MP3 offers roughly the same quality @128kbps. So what?! Am I going to jump to ogg just because of 32kbps less (which won't give *ANY* visual improvement to the video!) and get the incompatiblity of ogm streams?! why should I bother?!

eXistenZ

2nd October 2002, 16:56

Originally posted by Didée
if you never hear, browse a little through "New A/V formats" here, e.g. here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=187382).

Thanks for pointing me to that! (Ok, another forum to watch for ;))

Since I muxed two ogg audio streams encoded with same parameters I didn't encountered this bug. (That's what I meant when I said "I never heard", literally! Ok, I'll try to avoid this kind of joke in English, not my mother tongue :o)

And yes, I got frozen frame decoding ogm streams with DivX, but not with ffdshow, but I was giving the fault to DivX decoder, not to OggDs...

Didée

2nd October 2002, 22:21

Just realized, I was much faster with writing than with thinking - or the other way round?

"If you've never heared of,.." would have been the complete sentence ;)

MaTTeR

2nd October 2002, 23:09

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
Am I going to jump to ogg just because of 32kbps less (which won't give *ANY* visual improvement to the video!) and get the incompatiblity of ogm streams?! why should I bother?!

No you don't jump to Ogg Vorbis for that reason. This begs the question though..WTH would anyone still be using AVI containers unless absolutely needed for some God awful reason. Surely I don't need to list all the reasons why NOT to use AVI containers but instead use Ogg(ie. VBR audio, overhead, seeks, etc, etc, etc):D

Reading this thread twice I still fail to understand a "real" reason why not to use Vorbis audio for a 1CD rip. The only thing I can really think of is that most of you are still using DivX 5.x with the age old "freeze frame" bug that DXN refuses to address or point to a solution. I've personally used Vorbis for all my 1CD rips for about 8 months now for all the obvious reasons to me. Furthermore I give up on trying to help people understand Ogg is a freakin container and Vorbis is the wondereful audio that we stick into the container.LOL Guess were all waiting for the same thing really..the MCF format to bear fruit.

Hiro2k

3rd October 2002, 01:34

I switched to Vorbis a while ago. Im still using DivX5 and I have run into no trouble with the tools that are out for OGM. I love the fact that now there are no more problems with the stupid AVI container. I like being able to fastforward and not have to wait 5 secs for the audio and video to catch up. I also think that it's the best container for doing dual audio rips, even up to 3 audio tracks. And now with the new Tobais Filter we can have AC3 files in the OGM's. So while AVI with MP3 may be the standard, OGM clearly beats it out. I know the thread was originally about Vorbis, but there is no other way to hear the stream with the video.

Rooster6975

3rd October 2002, 10:18

If the movie is 1h50min or less, then I create a single CD Dolby Surround AVI (4.0). If it is greater than 1h50, then I create a 2CD 5.1 Dolby Digital AVI. Either way, I don't think you can get better sound on playback. If you pump either output through a Dolby Decoder (ProLogic for Suround, 5.1 for Digital), the sound is decoded into seperate channels just like on the DVD. Listening to a 5.1 DivX on 2CDs with perfect video (GKnot + 5.02) is a terrific experience.

There is no need to continue with MP3, or to move to OGG for that matter. AC3 is where it is at.

Cheers,
Rooster.

eXistenZ

3rd October 2002, 10:44

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
Am I going to jump to ogg just because of 32kbps less (which won't give *ANY* visual improvement to the video!) and get the incompatiblity of ogm streams?! why should I bother?!

Well, let's speak about low bitrate rips...

Consider a 2 hr movie to be encoded, muxed with two audio tracks and burned on a single CD...

Case #1: AVI with 2 VBR MP3 @ 128 kbps

here you'll go for a 685 MB, because you must take into account 15 MB of AVI overhead!

so you'll get:
796 kbps for overall streaming
256 kbps for audio
540 kbps for video

Case #2: OGM with 2 OGG Vorbis @ 90 kbps

no overhead, so you'll get:
815 kbps for overall streaming
180 kbps for audio
635 kbps for video

So, I found 540 kbps not acceptable for video encoding, whereas goin' for 635 kbps isn't any bad on TV!

Just my 2 €cents...

P.S. Edited because former bitrates were in Kbps (1 K = 1024), now in kbps (1 k = 1000) :D

MaTTeR

3rd October 2002, 11:14

Originally posted by Rooster6975
AC3 is where it is at.

Very true unless we eventually get some DTS tools;) We can still dream. heheh

Rooster6975

3rd October 2002, 11:19

Better to create a 2CD rip. Then you can use OGG if you like to minimize the space requirements for the audio stream and still have amazing video and 2 audio tracks. I find that dropping below 1000 kbps is asking for artifacts.

Cheers,
Rooster

eXistenZ

3rd October 2002, 11:31

Originally posted by Rooster6975
Better to create a 2CD rip. I find that dropping below 1000 kbps is asking for artifacts.

I think that the trade-off between video quality and # of CDs is really a matter of taste... after all, we're, hopefully, livin' in a free country :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Rooster6975
If the movie is 1h50min or less, then I create a single CD Dolby Surround AVI (4.0).

So, what's your video bitrate here :confused:?

Slogra

3rd October 2002, 11:56

I usually use mp3. Unless the surround sound of a movie is very impressive, then i use Dolby Digital at a low bitrate (224 or higher).

twistee

4th October 2002, 04:35

I switched to ogg ages ago. I got sick of the problems with avi's and muxing them. Its simple to do ogg's, and its stable (i have never had a problem with oggs). Also i get more bitrate for the video which is an added bonus :)

Sadamitsu

6th October 2002, 01:22

I would rather listen to a Q0 (~64kbps, but should be measured in quality, not filesize) vorbis-encoded file than any MP3. =P

BiaTch 5.0

7th October 2002, 07:27

Originally posted by Sadamitsu
I would rather listen to a Q0 (~64kbps, but should be measured in quality, not filesize) vorbis-encoded file than any MP3. =P
Why? :p , when comparing with other codecs/formats you have to specify the bitrate/file size not the q setting & specify an mp3 (or whatever) that produced equal bitrate.

ookzDVD

7th October 2002, 08:38

@forum

The idea is simple,
Ogg -> 1 CD
AC3 -> 2 CD

Mp3 -> 1 CD (I don't think so ;))
Mp3 -> 2 CD (better use Ac3)

So.... goodbye Mp3 ;)

Rooster6975

10th October 2002, 11:04

If you have a DTS and DD 5.1 capable decoder, can you really tell the difference between the two formats? I can't. If you close your eyes and listen, they both sound AMAZING! The only difference is for audio purists, there is less compression in the DTS format. It was originally developed before Dolby Digital 5.1 became a reality in 1992. Jurassic Park was the first DTS movie (released in 1993). The idea was to capture as much of the original sound as possible, and pipe it into 5 discreet channels. They used less compression than Dolby in order to avoid any loss in playback. Whilst most DD 5.1 is encoded at 448, you will find that DTS is either at 754 or 1509 kps. That makes for an enormous amount of audio over the course of a 2h movie.

If you figure it out, a DD 5.1 stream at 448 will be 400 MBs for a 120 minute movie, leaving you a full 1 GB for the vide on a 2CD rip. (448 kbs/8 = 56 KB/sec)*60 seconds*120 minutes = 403200 KB or 393.75 MBs. If you run the same formula through for 1509 DTS, you end up with 1358100 KB or 1326 MBs. That is without the video!!!!!! A 754 kbs DTS stream would take 662 MBs, again without the video.

Therefore, if you are planning on ripping a DTS DVD to CD, you will need to make them at the very least a 2 CD rip, and only with the lower 754 half data rate DTS stream. With the full 1509 stream, just go and buy the DVD, because the audio alone will take up 2 complete CDs!!! Since I really cannot tell the difference between the streams when I play a DVD through my DTS/DD 5.1 decoder, there is no reason I can think of to use the larger bitstream on a DivX and hence lower the quality of the video.

Cheers,
Rooster.

MaTTeR

10th October 2002, 12:57

Rooster,

What movie are you comparing the DTS/DD tracks in? Movies like chic flix and slow action drama type movies are not going to sound much different when most of the movie is dialog. Try watching Fifth Element, U-571, Pitch Black, Desperado, Air Force One, Dracula and Saving Private Ryan and you will see why the format is superior;) Even my low-end Sony DTS system "clearly" sounds much better compared to any DD 5.1 track I've heard. I can only imagine the dramatic difference I'll hear when I purcahse a nice Denon 2802 later this year.

I do agree that using a full bitrate DTS track for ripping purposes wouldn't be very effecient. However, I would MUCH rather take a DTS track and transcode it down to around 256kbps rather than doing it to a DD track for ripping purposes. I suspect the DTS track @ 256 would still sound superior compared to a DD track at same bitrate. IMHO the DTS format sells itself even if your listening to it on a low-end system such as mine. Wait till the SuperBit version of SpiderMan comes out with DTS:D

Rooster6975

10th October 2002, 14:28

Believe me, I don't waste my time watching chick flix in 5.1. If ever I am forced to watch one (I am married after all), then 2-channel stereo is fine with me. Who needs to hear the birds tweeting in the trees behind their heads or the ocean spray in surround sound anyway? The movie will STILL suck!

Tonight, the guys are watching T2 and Spawn. Both DVDs have DD 5.1 and DTS streams. We are watching them at a friend's house who is an audio nut and has top quality equipment, including a fantastically expensive Sony amp which can decode just about anything and a ridiculously expensive digital projector that he ordered from Germany. It fills the entire wall in perfect detail. He has 9 speakers wired to his amp (no kidding, L - F - R, and 2 each for the three surround channels in 6.1, and a subwoofer/LFE the size of a chair).

I am going to switch between the two streams and leave it up to the group to decide which one sounds better, without letting them know which is which. I am willing to bet they won't pick DTS every time I switch the audio, but you never know, I might be wrong!

Will post the results tomorrow. It won't help our judgement that we tend to drink alot during movie nights with the guys, but at least it will be an even playing field ;-)

Cheers,
Rooster

kheops

10th October 2002, 17:16

hi,

switched to ogg since there is still strong patents on mp3
(considering switching to xvid for the same reason)

+++

MaTTeR

10th October 2002, 22:01

Originally posted by Rooster6975
It won't help our judgement that we tend to drink alot during movie nights with the guys, but at least it will be an even playing field ;-)

LOL...well it will prolly all sound good to you then.

Rooster6975

11th October 2002, 22:08

I have to admit it, flipping between the two gave us a noticeable improvement in sound quality. DTS sounded fuller, more encompassing. At the same volume level, it was definitely quite a bit louder with no distortion whatsoever. Not that Dolby 5.1 had any distortion either, but it seemed just slightly more subdued. I don't think that it would be possible to tell the difference if you didn't listen to one and then the other right way, but the point is, we did! And we could tell the difference! Both methods produced terrific, quality sound. However, there is no doubt that the DTS sound pleased the larger percentage of people. We were basically in agreement to watch both films in DTS rather than DD 5.1.

T2 is an amazing movie in DTS. Throughout the whole film, every time the Terminator was on screen, you could hear the rumble of the ominous T2 background theme pumping out of the surround channels. There were many effects channeled to the LFE even though this movie was made before 5.1 was a reality. Great sound re-editing!! The explosions shook the whole room!!

The results are.... DTS for DVD if you have the choice! AC3 for DivX because you don't!

Cheers,
Rooster.

MaTTeR

11th October 2002, 22:56

Thanks for the feedback Rooster...hope your not too hungover now;)

I usually purchase almost all acton flix which have DTS tracks but I don't have T2 yet. Now that you have mentioned it, I'll be going to get it first thing in the AM after some coffee.

BTW- I too have "always" noticed that DTS tracks are much more loud than the DD 5.1. I prefer this so I don't feel like I'm overworking my crummy Sony amp :-) The other thing I've always noticed is that DTS almost always has better surround FX or some might call it better channel seperation. The one thing to keep in mind is that DTS is certainly competing with Dolby Labs, so the DTS folks are always out fine tuning the tracks to make sure regular people hear can hear a distinct difference between the formats...they obviously put more effort into the editing and that's why I'll continue to support them. Thx again, good to know I'm not the only person on the board who likes the format.

JohnMK

12th October 2002, 07:17

Originally posted by Rooster6975

There is no need to continue with MP3, or to move to OGG for that matter. AC3 is where it is at.

Why people continue to believe that they hold the objective reality is beyond me. Please don't make assertions like this. They're just not helpful to newbies whose opinions are very impressionable. Clearly point out that you're HIGHLY biased on audio quality, care significantly less for video quality, and thus your decision. Because that's the only objective reality there is. "There is no need to continue with MP3, or to move to OGG." For you, true. For me, very much not true. For others, who knows.

iago

12th October 2002, 10:28

Hello all,

Just a short answer to the title of this thread.
My "personal" preference is:

for 1CD -> OGG
for 2CD -> AC3

regards,
iago

Rooster6975

12th October 2002, 19:58

Originally posted by JohnMK

Why people continue to believe that they hold the objective reality is beyond me. Please don't make assertions like this. They're just not helpful to newbies whose opinions are very impressionable. Clearly point out that you're HIGHLY biased on audio quality, care significantly less for video quality, and thus your decision. Because that's the only objective reality there is. "There is no need to continue with MP3, or to move to OGG." For you, true. For me, very much not true. For others, who knows.

This is a forum John, that is what people do, render opinions! I am most certainly not HIGHLY biased towards audio quality, DivX I create have to have fantastic video else there is no point in creating them. That is why any backup I make is almost always on 2 CDs so that I can have the best of both worlds; top video quality and AC3 audio. In my humble opinion, an unbeatable combo. If any newbies are swayed by my opinions, GREAT! Because they will have been swayed towards making fantastic quality AVIs!!

JohnMK

12th October 2002, 20:12

I'm glad to see it bring you such happiness. In my own experience, I'd rather have about 1.3GB devoted to video, and 100MB to audio, across 2 CDs. The alternative is 400-500MB for audio, and 900-1000MB of video. If original audio is worth giving up 25% of your video bits, so be it. I'm happy you've found your sweet spot. :D

MaTTeR

12th October 2002, 20:41

I guess for those people who are watching the movies on a PC at home or a home theater with Dolby Pro Logic, then anything over 2 channels of audio is going to be a waste of space.

I think AAC would be a great compromise for all of us but we have to wait on the DSF I suppose.

Emp3r0r

12th October 2002, 21:11

Well, I was once a 2CD AC3 man but when vorbis came along and the ogg container offered chapters and instant seeking I changed to a 1 CD man. I love surround sound so AC3 is still my preference for action movies but now more than ever, it's hard to decide between 1CD and 2CD. And all this thanks to vorbis and ogg. MP3 what?.... NO!